December 17, 2019 - Last week Congressman Tom McClintock spoke in Opposition to Article I of Impeachment and Opposition to Article II of Impeachment.
Speech in Opposition to Article I of Impeachment
Judiciary Committee
December 12, 2019
Mr. Chairman:
The Constitution introduces the Presidency with 15 words: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” It does not vest any authority in Lieutenant Colonels at the NSC, 
ambassadors, state department officials, or cabinet secretaries. The only authority that these officials exercise is delegated to them by the President. Thus, all of the criticisms and resentments and personal and political disagreements that we have heard from those officials are completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Frankly, I find it dangerous that so many officials in the executive branch apparently believe that they have independent authority to override presidential policy, leak classified documents, and actively work to undermine the lawful discharge of the President's duties under Article Two.
If their judgment can replace that of the President, it means that the people of the United States have simply been removed from the equation.
Someone said during the discussion today, “That the President has actually committed real crimes.” The article does not charge such crimes. Why not? Because there's no evidence to support them. If there was evidence you know that they would have included any such charges in a heartbeat. So, it's obvious they don't even believe their own rhetoric.
One member said, “We are not restricted as the Department of Justice is.” Think about what that statement means. The Department of Justice is restricted by the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights sets forth basic principles of due process: the right to confront your accuser and the right to call witnesses in your defense. Charges have to be supported by evidence, not gossip. And you have the right to appeal to the courts to protect these rights.
Yes, the Department of Justice is restricted by the Bill of Rights, but our Bill of Rights with its due process protections, restricts all of us who take the oath of office, and that includes Congress. We are commanded to respect these rights just as much as the Department of Justice. Only the majority is now placing themselves above the supreme law of the land.
The lawful exercise of executive power is simply not an impeachable offense. The President is responsible for faithfully executing the laws. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act makes it a crime to offer something of value to secure business in a foreign country. Well, the facts of Mr. Biden's actions in Ukraine certainly look like they crossed that line.
Does the President have the authority to request cooperation of a foreign government to investigate potentially corrupt interactions between U.S. officials and their own officials? Of course, he does.
The Democrats impute the most sinister motives to this request when nothing in the conversation suggests that. “Do us a favor because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.” That's the exact quote around which this entire impeachment is constructed.
The National Defense Authorization Act specifically requires the administration to determine that Ukraine is taking steps to combat corruption before aid can be released. The Democrats have made much of the fact that the Secretary of Defense certified this in May. But they ignore two facts. Number one, the Secretary of Defense exercises no authority independent of the President. The buck still stops at the President's desk. And two, the President retains responsibility to determine that the findings of his administration remain valid – particularly as he assesses the intention of a newly elected Ukrainian President and Parliament.
And lest we forget, last year three Democratic Senators wrote to the Ukrainian government demanding that it cooperate in investigating President Trump. The Democrats found absolutely nothing objectionable about this. The only difference I see is that the President actually has the authority and the responsibility to make such a request.
So, what's at stake here? The worst possible interpretations of the President's motives in discharging his constitutional powers are being imputed to him by his most vitriolic opponents. There’s nothing extraordinary about that, it’s called politics.
But if this can become the new standard of impeachment --that Congress can impeach any President for any action whose motives his opponents question -- if this is allowed to replace “treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors” as the standard for nullifying a national election and substituting the judgment of Congress for the judgment of the American people – then no President can make any decision without subjecting the nation to the travesty going on today.
The executive branch will be subordinated to the legislative, serving at the pleasure of Congress and the separation of powers at the heart of our Constitution will have been severely damaged if not utterly destroyed.
Speech in Opposition to Article II of Impeachment
Speech in Opposition to Article II of Impeachment
Judiciary Committee
December 12, 2019
Mr. Chairman,
The doctrine of executive privilege began with a subpoena that the House issued to President George Washington in 1796 demanding all the papers relating to the Jay Treaty. President Washington refused that subpoena because he said the powers of the House did not extend to treaties. He ultimately provided that information only to the Senate as a function of its treaty approval process. This ancient doctrine is derived from the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.
Congress can no more intrude into the policy discussions of the President than the President can intrude into our own policy discussions. That is essential to the separation of powers. The natural tension between the branches of government is a by-product of that separation of powers. When tensions between the executive and the legislative branches cannot be resolved by themselves, then we turn to the judiciary. That's the appropriate way to resolve this dispute. When there are different interpretations of the boundaries between the Congress and the President, the appropriate response is judicial review, not impeachment.
The President has every right to assert his constitutional privileges and he has every responsibility to defend the prerogatives of his office. His very oath of office compels him to do so. In matters like this, the courts have acted quickly to resolve such disputes, but the Democrats aren't willing to go to the courts.
The second article of impeachment says, “We're not willing to go to court. We'll take the law into our own hands.” These are the same people who tell us that no one is above the law, except, of course, for themselves.
What they're saying is Congress alone will decide the limits of our own power. This is the essence of despotism. The reason why we separate the powers of government is so that one branch alone cannot unilaterally define its own power. And yet this is the power the Democrats are now arrogating to themselves.
It's true we have the sole power of impeachment under the Constitution, but that power does not exceed the bounds that are established by that same Constitution. Those bounds include the adhering to the constitutional grounds for impeachment, which this committee has ignored, honoring the due process provisions of the Bill of Rights, which this committee has also ignored, and respecting the constitutional separation of powers that protect one branch from intrusions of the others.
I want you to think about the essence of the Democrats' claim and what it means to American jurisprudence. Suppose you someday face an abusive prosecutor who is making false accusations. Our Constitution provides you with certain rights to protect yourself. You have the right to confront your accuser, you have the right to call witnesses in your defense, you have the right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. If these rights are abused, you can seek redress and protection from an independent judiciary.
But this second impeachment article says, “If you go to court to defend your rights, that's automatically an obstruction of justice (or in this case, an obstruction of Congress) -- and the very fact that you tried to defend your constitutional rights is evidence of your guilt.”
These are the tools of tyrants. We have already seen these tools used against college students in Title IX prosecutions and they’ve produced a frightening litany of injustices. Now they are being used here today in a brazen attempt to nullify the 2016 national election that the left has refused to accept.
And that should scare the hell out of every person in this country.
Source: Congressman Tom McClintock
